It follows the established pattern of repeating anecdotal evidence (escaped circus animals, military mascots, etc) without mentioning the body of evidence that goes back to the colonial era and the various 'big cat' sightings that predate the 20th Century. How far back do these sightings go? What's the earliest known report in that area? Sarah Brookes doesn't bother to go into that much detail.

Vaughan King well have spoken to animal handlers and put 'two and two together' regarding the location of previous military bases but that's not much in the way of research. The article is certainly lazy from a journalistic viewpoint, and is being used as filler or 'local colour' rather than being a serious report. The photo of the guy with the binoculars is baffling...wouldn't you want at least an artist's impression of the actual animal(s)?

Sorry. I'm being too critical, I suppose. I've just seen so many articles identical to the one Sarah Brookes has produced that I'm pretty jaded about them. She hasn't gone into any detail or tried to tell the reader anything they didn't already know. You don't need to be a fan of Cryptozoology to know the old 'escaped circus animals' yarn...everyone already knows that one. I wish they'd tell us something we don't know instead of just making up the numbers by churning out more of the same uninformative, rehashed stuff.